Fix the D in Free Agency

[Solar7]

I could contribute right away LOL.

Humphries allowed, what? 2 sacks?

That's a pretty damn good season.

We've gone over this for around 20 years on this board and its predecessors....

Whenever the Cardinals have a veteran player that is hitting free agency, some wise sage comes forward and talks of schemes to let said veteran walk and replace them with a cheaper player.

In our collective ASFN history, do you know how often that has worked out? Pretty much never.

A LT that gives up 2 sacks on a season is worth $14 million per season.

I hate the position we're in. I think Hump is good but won't ever be great. I don't think we can do a ton better unless we franchise him and run the risk of him hating us/holding out.

If I could navigate everyone's emotions and control the future, I'd ideally do what @BritCard is saying and probably go with the tag and Thomas. But the more cautious and conservative person in me says to go ahead and just pay Humphries.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I hate the position we're in. I think Hump is good but won't ever be great. I don't think we can do a ton better unless we franchise him and run the risk of him hating us/holding out.

If I could navigate everyone's emotions and control the future, I'd ideally do what @BritCard is saying and probably go with the tag and Thomas. But the more cautious and conservative person in me says to go ahead and just pay Humphries.

I understand the position too and don't like it. It just feels like one of those times when we might let him go because we value him 500k or a 1M less and have a hard line in the sand and create a hole in the team.

I'd pay him so we don't start causing our own problems by letting a good player go in free agency and prove again our GM's ineptitude.

 

[Solar7]

I understand the position too and don't like it. It just feels like one of those times when we might let him go because we value him 500k or a 1M less and have a hard line in the sand and create a hole in the team.

I'd pay him so we don't start causing our own problems by letting a good player go in free agency and prove again our GM's ineptitude.

Yeah, if we let him go over a million bucks, I'll find a way to go spill ranch dressing on Steve Keim's favorite pair of slacks.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Reminds me of Calais and Tony Jefferson.

You dont let good talent walk. Just no.

 

[Chopper0080]

Reminds me of Calais and Tony Jefferson.

You dont let good talent walk. Just no.

Tony Jefferson...too expensive
Tyrann Mathieu...too expensive
Calais Campbell...too expensive
Alex Okafor...too expensive
Markus Golden...too expensive
Justin Bethel...too expensive
Josh Bynes...too expensive
Bobby Massie...too expensive
Lorenzo Alexander...too expensive
Karlos Dansby...too expensive

All of those financially frugal decisions, like not over-paying DJ Humphries would be, have led us to where we are today.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[slanidrac16]

I also think we forget DJ is only 26. There has to be a chance he improves.

let him walk and if does improve or go heavens becomes a top 5 tackle we will look very stupid.

 

[BritCard]

Tony Jefferson...too expensive
Tyrann Mathieu...too expensive
Calais Campbell...too expensive
Alex Okafor...too expensive
Markus Golden...too expensive
Justin Bethel...too expensive
Josh Bynes...too expensive
Bobby Massie...too expensive
Lorenzo Alexander...too expensive
Karlos Dansby...too expensive

All of those financially frugal decisions, like not over-paying DJ Humphries would be, have led us to where we are today.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

You can make an equally long list of players we have signed to bad contracts.

Plus some of these guys weren't let go because of money. Okafor left because we had Golden. Bethel left because he sucked. Bynes was not money related, we lost dead money. Massie was because of drinking.

This whole argument comes down to whether you think Hump is good or not. I don't think he is. He's barely a top 20 tackle and I'm not paying top 4 money for top 20 talent.

But I also see your point, I think it's a waste of money that can get you a top OLB opposite CJ but at the very best you tag Hump. Extending him to a multi year deal after 1 average healthy season is foolish.

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

 

[Krangodnzr]

You can make an equally long list of players we have signed to bad contracts.

Plus some of these guys weren't let go because of money. Okafor left because we had Golden. Bethel left because he sucked. Bynes was not money related, we lost dead money. Massie was because of drinking.

This whole argument comes down to whether you think Hump is good or not. I don't think he is. He's barely a top 20 tackle and I'm not paying top 4 money for top 20 talent.

But I also see your point, I think it's a waste of money that can get you a top OLB opposite CJ but at the very best you tag Hump. Extending him to a multi year deal after 1 average healthy season is foolish.

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

The list of "bad contract guys" is mostly made up of free agents from other teams.

You could argue Gresham. Mathieu? Looking now like his contract was reasonable.

Those of you arguing to move on from Humphries to sign free agents from other teams, do realize that the historical hit rate for top free agents is pretty low? The majority of times free agents vastly underperformed for their new team.

 

[Krangodnzr]

You can make an equally long list of players we have signed to bad contracts.

Plus some of these guys weren't let go because of money. Okafor left because we had Golden. Bethel left because he sucked. Bynes was not money related, we lost dead money. Massie was because of drinking.

This whole argument comes down to whether you think Hump is good or not. I don't think he is. He's barely a top 20 tackle and I'm not paying top 4 money for top 20 talent.

But I also see your point, I think it's a waste of money that can get you a top OLB opposite CJ but at the very best you tag Hump. Extending him to a multi year deal after 1 average healthy season is foolish.

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

2 sacks last year. That is good performance for a LT.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I hate the position we're in. I think Hump is good but won't ever be great. I don't think we can do a ton better unless we franchise him and run the risk of him hating us/holding out.

If I could navigate everyone's emotions and control the future, I'd ideally do what @BritCard is saying and probably go with the tag and Thomas. But the more cautious and conservative person in me says to go ahead and just pay Humphries.

If Humphries is good, not great, $14 million is a decent contract.

Humphries is easily a top 4 LT for the Cardinals since they came to Arizona.

1. Lomas Brown
2. Jared Veldheer
3. DJ Humphries or Luis Sharpe.

 

[Chopper0080]

You can make an equally long list of players we have signed to bad contracts.

Plus some of these guys weren't let go because of money. Okafor left because we had Golden. Bethel left because he sucked. Bynes was not money related, we lost dead money. Massie was because of drinking.

This whole argument comes down to whether you think Hump is good or not. I don't think he is. He's barely a top 20 tackle and I'm not paying top 4 money for top 20 talent.

But I also see your point, I think it's a waste of money that can get you a top OLB opposite CJ but at the very best you tag Hump. Extending him to a multi year deal after 1 average healthy season is foolish.

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

No you can't. Not in terms of re-signing players. That list is David Johnson and Jermaine Gresham. Some might include Tyrann Mathieu but honestly, playoff teams have been paying him large amounts of money and us, a terrible team, chose not to. While I was ok with the move at the time, looking back, apparently I was the impatient donkey.

There is far more risk to your organization prioritizing an OLB over a player to protect your 2nd year QB. Also, it is more of a risk to prioritize signing players that other organizations choose to let go vs spending on your own, know individuals.

 

[Chopper0080]

If Humphries is good, not great, $14 million is a decent contract.

Humphries is easily a top 4 LT for the Cardinals since they came to Arizona.

1. Lomas Brown
2. Jared Veldheer
3. DJ Humphries or Luis Sharpe.

Here is the other part. If you sign DJ this year, yo udon;t have to worry about the contracts for Villanueva, Bakhtiari, Ramcyzk, Dawkins, Decker, Tunsil, Stanley, and Cordy Glenn which are all up next year. Even if DJ is a top 5 paid OT this year, he won't be by the end of next offseason.

 

[Lagerfilled]

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

I don’t understand why so many folks believe a rookie OT will have certain success in the NFL let alone shifting said individual to the other side and expecting the same production when they haven’t done it before.

Now that’s foolish! Time and time again we’ve tried moving players to unnatural positions based on measurables and failed miserably. We even tried it with Hump. I’m all for versatility, but how about we draft guys to play where they excelled in college?!?

The issue with Hump for me is price vs production. I wouldn’t pay him much more than $12.5mm/yr. because he’s proven to be average and injury prone. With that said, you must have a better option locked in before you let Hump go. Sorry, but I’m not banking on a rookie to be as good out of the gate.

 

[BritCard]

I don’t understand why so many folks believe a rookie OT will have certain success in the NFL let alone shifting said individual to the other side and expecting the same production when they haven’t done it before.

Now that’s foolish! Time and time again we’ve tried moving players to unnatural positions based on measurables and failed miserably. We even tried it with Hump. I’m all for versatility, but how about we draft guys to play where they excelled in college?!?

The issue with Hump for me is price vs production. I wouldn’t pay him much more than $12.5mm/yr. because he’s proven to be average and injury prone. With that said, you must have a better option locked in before you let Hump go. Sorry, but I’m not banking on a rookie to be as good out of the gate.

All 3 of the top tackles have played both sides in their careers. Wills less so at college than the others but it's not a stretch for any of them to switch sides.

 

[BritCard]

2 sacks last year. That is good performance for a LT.

If you believe that 2 sack number than our whole starting 5 only gave up 13 and are the best O line ever.

 

[slanidrac16]

You can make an equally long list of players we have signed to bad contracts.

Plus some of these guys weren't let go because of money. Okafor left because we had Golden. Bethel left because he sucked. Bynes was not money related, we lost dead money. Massie was because of drinking.

This whole argument comes down to whether you think Hump is good or not. I don't think he is. He's barely a top 20 tackle and I'm not paying top 4 money for top 20 talent.

But I also see your point, I think it's a waste of money that can get you a top OLB opposite CJ but at the very best you tag Hump. Extending him to a multi year deal after 1 average healthy season is foolish.

The tag is $14.5m full guaranteed. It's the same as he wants a year. Tag him. Draft a tackle. That guy can start at RT and move over to LT if we don't extend Hump next year.

There is no way in hell Humphries will play under the tag and there is no way he will hold out. I think he WILL be tagged and eventually come to a reasonable contract that will make him more money than a one year tag and MILLIONS more if he was stupid enough to hold out.

 

[football karma]

a long term deal for Humphries likely requires somewhere between $25 and $30mm in "true" guaranteed money --

if you believe that DJ is NFL average for a LT with a chance to improve -- then sign him longer term. The $14mm tag is ~50% of the guaranteed money on a long term deal (note: this doesn't mean "at any price")

Very worst case (i.e. the risk): you commit $30mm & DJ either through injury or effort bombs out next year. You eat $15mm in dead money on the 2021 cap and move on.

The reward of a long term deal: you lock up a foundational piece at a hard to find position and have control for the next 5 seasons.


Why not just tag him vs a long term deal? IF he puts together another year, or, even improves -- he gets much, much more expensive. 2nd year of a franchise tag goes up 20%, or nearly $17mm.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

If you believe that 2 sack number than our whole starting 5 only gave up 13 and are the best O line ever.

So now we aren't believing sack numbers? What is the agenda to lie about this one?

 

[BritCard]

So now we aren't believing sack numbers? What is the agenda to lie about this one?

Do we have an elite O line that only allowed 13 sacks? Because that's also a PFF statistic.

 

[ARZCardinals]

Keim's no longer GM material

Find guys who can evaluate talent and actually negotiate

When the team is

2019 - 5-10 and 1
2018 - 3-13
2017 - 8-8
2016 - 7-8 and 1

The division is 5 miles ahead in the race.

9ers turned from 31st ranked to #1, HOW? D LINE and O LINE and a TE.

 

[DVontel]

Do we have an elite O line that only allowed 13 sacks? Because that's also a PFF statistic.

So what is it? Do you not believe in PFF or not?

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I could contribute right away LOL.

Humphries allowed, what? 2 sacks?

That's a pretty damn good season.

We've gone over this for around 20 years on this board and its predecessors....

Whenever the Cardinals have a veteran player that is hitting free agency, some wise sage comes forward and talks of schemes to let said veteran walk and replace them with a cheaper player.

In our collective ASFN history, do you know how often that has worked out? Pretty much never.

A LT that gives up 2 sacks on a season is worth $14 million per season.

Exactly, why create a new hole on the roster to fill by letting a good player go?

Just pay the man and use our draft pick to plug one of the holes that we already have.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Do we have an elite O line that only allowed 13 sacks? Because that's also a PFF statistic.

Are you arguing for argument's sake? Because that's what it looks like.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I hate the position we're in. I think Hump is good but won't ever be great. I don't think we can do a ton better unless we franchise him and run the risk of him hating us/holding out.

If I could navigate everyone's emotions and control the future, I'd ideally do what @BritCard is saying and probably go with the tag and Thomas. But the more cautious and conservative person in me says to go ahead and just pay Humphries.

If the team isn't completely sold on Hump than they should just tag him for 1 year and get one more year to evaluate if they want to make him the long term guy. What they shouldn't do is just let him walk away for nothing and have yet another position to try and fill before the season.

 

[GatorAZ]

There is no way in hell Humphries will play under the tag and there is no way he will hold out. I think he WILL be tagged and eventually come to a reasonable contract that will make him more money than a one year tag and MILLIONS more if he was stupid enough to hold out.

The franchise tag for tackles will be north of $16m. That’s 16m fully guaranteed.